A couple of background thoughts, one theoretical, t’other empirically based.

According to British Social Attitudes, 16 years ago a majority of voters believed in a welfare safety net to cover the most vulnerable in society. To-day only 20% do so. (Quoted in current LRB, page 30.)

If society were truly meritocratic – if everyone did get on according to their ability and nothing else – what attitude would people have towards those doing the most menial jobs – those with the lowest social status and therefore presumably the lowest pay. I suggest that attitudes would be even more negative than they are to-day. Would such a society really be a better one to live in?

@1

You might find this interesting… http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

“The New Conservative vision of the role of the state in tackling poverty and inequality is based ‘on the belief that moral concern, duty and obligation are enough to persuade those with wealth and power to help lift the disadvantaged and marginalised out of deprivation’.”

No, they believe the market will.

“That [public sector cuts] means shorter, unhappier and unhealthier lives, and increases in obesity, teenage pregnancy, violence and addiction.”

This assumes that long, happy, healthy lives are completely dependent on state aid – a horrid idea! Where is the liberty in that?

@thepulse

It is not public sector cuts alone that will lead to shorter and unhappier lives but the overall Tory economy policy – it will increase inequality which will then in turn cause these social ills.

@3 The Pulse

“This assumes that long, happy, healthy lives are completely dependent on state aid – a horrid idea! Where is the liberty in that?”

I doubt many people see it in such manichaean terms, but few people would deny that social inequality has a direct impact. Unless you really beleive a la Thatcher in her most “leaderene” guise that there is “no such thing as society”?

The Tories in the end believe in a small state, and that people can lift themselves out of poverty with a combination of state help (but probably less than currently provided), privately provided charity, and the trickle down effects of increased prosperity for the whole population.

The rich and the middle classes get to keep as much of their hard earned (or cleverly hidden) money as they can, but will increasingly have to spend it on private health insurance, school fees etc. They are also expected as part of the compassionate Conservative project to give generously to charity, do voluntary work etc which will somehow substitute for the “safety net”, or at least serve to patch it up.

Yeah, right. If I’d wanted to live in the USA I’d have moved there.

From the OP above:

“The themes Cameron was developing of social justice, environmentalism, localism, community and concern over ‘broken Britain’ resonated because the language was warmer and frequently more utopian than the coarse, shrill language being used by Labour ministers.”

Quite…. and a useful explanation of why neither the Tories or New Labour can be trusted.

They are not prepared to ensure that the richest pay a proportionally equal amount of taxes to the poor

The rich pay a proportionally greater amount of their taxes to the poor.

Come on, Joe, this post was just an amalgam of duff facts and unsupported tribalism.

“The wheels are coming off the Compassionate Conservative project.”

They came off around 2003 as I recall, around the same time as ‘measured response’ fell by the wayside.

No they don’t pagar – this quote is from David Willetts of the conservatives (so not a lefty) following the 2005 election (linked to by Sunder earlier in the week):

“It is true that poor people pay a shockingly high amount of tax. The richest 20 per cent of households lose 35 per cent of their incomes in tax. The poorest 20 per cent of households lose 37.9 per cent of their incomes in tax. In fact the poorest 20 per cent pay a higher proportion of their incomes in tax than any other slice of the population. No one seriously planned for this bizarre outcome.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article536372.ece

“The wheels are coming off the Compassionate Conservative project.”

I think its more than that. In an effort to look different they’ve spent too long closeted together in darkened rooms and have come out with some really nutty ideas. The idea of “Choice” might resonate with people but closer examination of what the tories suggest would have most people running a mile. The question must be whether there will be a closer examination in the mainstream media.

Who is going to do all the volunteering? Take time out to run their local school? Those who are going to volunteer aleady do. There are already many ways to take part in and influence schools, local government and police authorities. I can’t see anything new and useful being added. These are just hopeless gestures that they hope will substitute for the funds they plan to cut.

Yrrzem!

The unemployed are going to be ‘volunteered’ whether we like it or not!

I notice that no-one seems to have explored the nature of the new Workfare programme that’s in the offing, not just from the Conservatvies, but from everyone, Labour, UKIP, and the BNP (yes yes yes).

This is one issue that has yet to be thought through seriously – except by a few sites like ours:

http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/workfare-and-the-general-election/

“The over-zealous cutting of the budget deficit combined with public sector pay freezes ……would increase the Gini co-efficient.”

No, not cutting the budget deficit and not freezing public sector pay will lead the UK to go broke. If that happens we will be forced into a massive internal devalutaion, like Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland and Hungary have all experienced recently.

20% pay cuts for the public sector, massive redundancies and a housing market utterly crushed?

They too can be yours if you let budget deficits and debt get out of control.

When will the left learn that running 12% budget deficits and tripling national debt is not sustainable, and only leads to more problems down the line and lower long term growth.